Asian Pacific Journal of Cancer Prevention

Asian Pacific Journal of Cancer Prevention (아시아태평양암예방학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Significantly Low Effective Dose from 18FDG PET/CT Scans Using Dose Reducing Strategies: "Lesser is Better"

  • Published : 2016.07.01
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Background: Fluorodeoxyglucose ($^{18}FDG$) PET/CT imaging has become an important component of the management paradigm in oncology. However, the significant imparted radiation exposure is a matter of growing concern especially in younger populations who have better odds of survival. The aim of this study was to estimate the effective dose received by patients having whole body $^{18}F$-FDG PET/CT scanning as per recent dose reducing guidelines at a tertiary care hospital. Materials and Methods: This prospective study covered 63 patients with different cancers who were referred for PET/CT study for various indications. Patients were prepared as per departmental protocol and 18FDG was injected at 3 MBq/Kg and a low dose, non-enhanced CT protocol (LD-NECT) was used. Diagnostic CT studies of specific regions were subsequently performed if required. Effective dose imparted by 18FDG (internal exposure) was calculated by using multiplying injected dose in MBq with coefficient $1.9{\times}10^{-2}mSv/MBq$ according to ICRP publication 106. Effective dose imparted by CT was calculated by multiplying DLP (mGy.cm) with ICRP conversion coefficient "k" 0.015 [mSv / (mG. cm)]. Results: Mean age of patients was $49{\pm}18$ years with a male to female ratio of 35:28 (56%:44%). Median dose of 18FDG given was 194 MBq (range: 139-293). Median CTDIvol was 3.25 (2.4-6.2) and median DLP was 334.95 (246.70 - 576.70). Estimated median effective dose imparted by $^{18}FDG$ was 3.69 mSv (range: 2.85-5.57). Similarly the estimated median effective dose by low dose (non-diagnostic) CT examination was 4.93 mSv (range: 2.14 -10.49). Median total effective dose by whole body 18FDG PET plus low dose non-diagnostic CT study was 8.85 mSv (range: 5.56-13.00). Conclusions: We conclude that the median effective dose from a whole body 18FDG PET/CT in our patients was significantly low. We suggest adhering to recently published dose reducing strategies, use of ToF scanner with CT dose reducing option to achieve the lower if not the lowest effective dose. This would certainly reduce the risk of second primary malignancy in younger patients with higher odds of cure from first primary cancer.

Keywords

References

  1. Brix G, Lechel U, Glatting G, et al (2005). Radiation exposure of patients undergoing whole-body dual-modality 18F-FDG PET/CT examinations. J Nucl Med, 46, 608-13
  2. Boellaard R, Delgado RB, Oyen W, et al (2015). FDG PET/CT: EANM procedure guidelines for tumour imaging: version 2.0. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imag, 42, 328-54 https://doi.org/10.1007/s00259-014-2961-x
  3. Chawla SC, Federmna N, Zhang D, et al (2010). Estimated cumulative radiation dose from PET/CT in children with malignancies: a 5-year retrospective review. Pediatr Radiol, 40, 681-6 https://doi.org/10.1007/s00247-009-1434-z
  4. Christner J, Kofler J, McCollough C (2010). Estimating effectivedose for CT using dose-length product compared withusing organ doses: consequences of adopting InternationalCommission on Radiological Protection Publication 103 orDual-Energy Scanning. Am J Radiology, 194, 881-9
  5. Ghotbi A, Iwanaga M, Ohtsuru A, Ogawa Y, Yamashita S (2007). Cancer screening with whole-body PET/CT for healthy asymptomatic people in Japan: re-evaluation of its test validity and radiation exposure. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev, 8, 93-7
  6. Graham M, Wahl R, Hoffman J, et al (2015). Summary of the UPICT Protocol for FDG PET/CT Imaging in Oncology Clinical Trials. J Nucl Med, 56, 955-61 https://doi.org/10.2967/jnumed.115.158402
  7. Huang B, Law M W-M and Khong (2009). Whole-Body PET/CT scanning: estimation of radiation dose and cancer risk. Radiol, 25, 166-74
  8. ICRP (2008).Radiation dose to patients from radiopharmaceuticals. Addendum 3 to ICRP Publication 53.ICRP Publication 106. Approved by the Commission in October 2007. Ann ICRP, 38, 1-197. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.icrp.2008.10.006
  9. Jallow N, Christian P, Sunderland J, et al (2016). Diagnostic reference levels of CT radiation dose in whole-body PET/CT. J Nucl Med, 57, 238-41 https://doi.org/10.2967/jnumed.115.160465
  10. Mahmud M, Nordin A, Saad A, Azman F (2014). Estimation of patient radiation dose from whole body 18FFDGPET/CT examination in cancer imaging: a preliminary study. J Physics: Conference Series, 546, 12008 https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/546/1/012008
  11. Milana M, Marko E, Miroslav L, Tihomir D (2015). Importance of PET/CT scan use in planning radiation therapy for lymphoma. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev, 16, 2051-4 https://doi.org/10.7314/APJCP.2015.16.5.2051
  12. Surti S (2015). Update on time-of-flight PET imaging. J Nucl Med, 56, 98-105 https://doi.org/10.2967/jnumed.114.145029
  13. Uslu L, Doing J, Link M, et al (2015). Value of 18F-FDG PET and PET/CT for Evaluation of Pediatric Malignancies. J Nucl Med, 56, 274-86 https://doi.org/10.2967/jnumed.114.146290
  14. Von Schulthess GK, Steinert HC, Hany TF (2006). Integrated PET/CT: current applications and future directions. Radiol, 238, 405-22. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2382041977
  15. Zaman M, Fatima N, Zafar Sajjad, et al (2014). $^{18}FDG$ Synthesis and supply: a journey from existing centralized to future decentralized models. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev, 15, 10057-9